One week after his inauspicious Statehouse debut, professional oilman Larry Wilson was back under the golden dome today, trying to convince the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee that his company doesn’t need any more regulation, thank you very much. Photo: Wilson explains his position to an apparently skeptical Rep. Kathryn Webb (D-Shelburne).

Wilson is President and CEO of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline Corporation; his pipeline carries imported oil from Portland to Montreal for sale in Canadian markets. On the way, it traverses the Northeast Kingdom. Last Tuesday, he told the committee that his company has no current plans to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to carry tar-sands oil from western Canada to Portland for export — but, he quickly added, his company fervently hopes to develop such a plan.

(A development I reported the day it happened, one week ago. Congratulations to VPR’s John Dillon for reporting on it yesterday — a mere six days after my posting. Dillon’s report apparently prompted Channel 5’s Stewart Ledbetter and the Associated Press’ Dave Gram to attend today’s hearing. Because, y’know, it’s not really news until someone in the “real media” covers it.)

The subject of the hearing was, again, House Bill 27, which would explicitly require Act 250 review for any substantial alteration in an existing oil pipeline. If the bill passes, Wilson’s company would have to go through the permitting process as if from scratch.

Wilson arrived at the hearing with a full posse at his back, a Southern drawl oozing from his mouth, and a satchel of patent medicines at his side. Well, not really, but he sure had plenty of bromides on offer. Wall-to-wall assurances that the pipeline industry is safe as houses, that transporting thick, sludgy, toxic tar-sands oil is a walk in the park, and that if there’s ever a problem, well, Ma’am, you can count on your friends in the oil industry to clean it up right quick.

And he repeated last week’s message: he has every hope of reversing his pipeline and carrying western oil to Portland by way of the NEK.  

“We do not have an active project to reverse the pipeline. We hope to have a project to use the pipeline.  Moving western Canadian heavy crude* is one possibility. We are confident we can transport heavy crude very safely and efficiently. …We are aggressively pursuing projects to use our resources.”

*WIlson never once uttered the words “tar sands.” To him, tar sands oil is simply heavy crude, nothing more, no worries, move right along, folks.

His tone was consistently polite and measured. At least it was until after his testimony was put on hold so the committee could hear from Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. (The hearing got started late, and Murphy was on a tight schedule.)

Murphy spoke in favor of the bill. He noted that although the pipeline industry has a good safety record, “Pipelines do fail, and when they fail, they fail catastrophically.” He pointed to the 2010 disaster in southwest Michigan, in which a pipeline carrying tar-sands oil failed and “it took 17 hours before the operator realized there was a spill.” More than a million gallons of heavy, gucky oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River. The river and surrounding waters are still tainted by the oil.

Murphy then spoke about the broader implications of tar-sands oil, which he called “dirtier and more carbon-intensive than any other fossil fuel.” He gave his opinion that Act 250 already applies to a pipeline reversal, but he endorsed H.27 as adding clarity to the issue.

After Murphy’s departure, Wilson returned to the stand and allowed his contempt for environmentalism to show through his veneer of Southern charm. Wilson asserted that Murphy “had several things wrong,” and accused “the environmental movement” of deliberately stretching the truth and “throwing anything at business to delay” new projects.

The rest of his testimony featured some thinly veiled threats. He said H.27 “would impede our ability to access open markets” by imposing “undue regulation.” He then added:

“This bill sends a strong signal to the Canadian government that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want their oil,’ and it sends a message to companies like ours that ‘We (Vermonters) don’t want your business.’

“If this opportunity does not present itself to us, we will have to determine the best use of our pipeline. It’s been a wonderful run since 1941, and we’d like it to continue.”

In other words, be nice to us or we’ll take our pipeline away.

Gee, Larry, if that’s how you feel, I think we’re more than prepared to tell you exactly where you can stick your pipeline and then reverse the flow.  

Special Presidents’ Day Edition, with a mixed-metaphor closing image because I like it, okay?

The godless state of Vermont, gloriously headed for Hell in a sap bucket. The good folks at Gallup have confirmed what we all suspected was true: Vermont is the least religious state in the union. Notwithstanding recent efforts by the Freeploid to drag us back into the soft and suffocating arms of the One True Church.

Only 19% of Vermonters described themselves as “very religious.” The national average was 40%. But we’re only slightly more godless than our New England neighbors, which must have Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather spinning in their skivvies. The five least religious states, in fact, are New England states, ranging from Vermont (19%) to Rhode Island (29%). Connecticut, at 31%, is in a five-way tie for eighth place.

So who’s at the top of the list? You’ll never guess. No, actually, you will.

Mississippi, at 58%. In fact, with the exception of heavily Mormon Utah (56%, tied with Alabama), the top ten list is dominated by the Old South. Maybe we should have let ’em secede, after all.

Seven Days, a.k.a. The Weekly Freeploid, for copying the Freeps’ favorite (and laziest) journalistic technique: poking around in public records looking for some sign of excessive spending — or spending you can mischaracterize as excessive, anyhow.

This time, the intrepid Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz inquired about Governor Shumlin’s use of the Vermont state airplane — a 1962 Cessna. And the big reveal?

Shumlin took the plane to one campaign event last fall, and failed to reimburse the state. His campaign has now belatedly done so. To the tune of $65.80.

Sixty-five dollars and eighty cents. That’s gotta be the tiniest scandal in the history of politics.

The Sixty-Dollar Scandal comes several weeks after Seven Days’ big Christmastime expose — that the state had spent $2.2 million to put up homeless individuals and families in budget motels, at an average cost of $58 per night. Maybe that’s excessive, maybe it isn’t, I don’t know; but I do know it’d be an awful lot more costly to either (a) build and operate a bunch more shelters, or (b) solve the state’s chronic affordable-housing shortage.

And I know this: both of these stories are classic examples of neoconservative scandal-mongering that probably have Peter Freyne spinning in his skivvies.

They’re also the kind of thing you should be doing in the slow months. Not when the Legislature is running at full steam, and there are important stories going unreported every damn day.

Two pieces of free advice, worth every penny: Save the FOIA requests and database searches for after the Legislature adjourns. And, the next time a scavenger hunt produces nothing more than $65 for a short hop in an aging airplane, don’t bother writing it up.

Also, a special bonus Thumbs Down to the aforementioned Freeploid, for stealing Heintz’ $65 “scandal” and getting Terri Hallenbeck to write it up big-time — without giving proper attribution to Seven Days. Hey, if you’re going to squander your journalistic ethics, don’t do it on a trumped-up nothingburger of a story.

After the jump: Shumlin in a handicap match, an ex-Governor burglarized, a new Vermont skiing champ, and a pie in the face for the Slummin’ Solon.

Governor Peter Shumlin, for getting an opportunity to exercise his intellectual superiority in our nation’s capital. This Friday morning, as part of Politico.com’s annual State Solutions Conference, Shumlin (as head of the Democratic Governors Association) will debate his Republican counterpart.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Sheesh. If Shummy can’t mop the floor with that wafer-thin ideologue, I’ll be sorely disappointed.

The debate is set for Friday morning at 8. I’ve been looking for information about a broadcast or livestream of the event, but haven’t found any. If someone out there has more info, please let me know and I’ll update this post. Get your popcorn ready!

 Former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift, who recently moved to Vermont, and was greeted not by a Welcome Wagon, but by a burglar. Swift is now CEO of Middlebury Interactive Languages, and is renting a home in nearby Cornwall. But when she returned from work last Tuesday evening, she found the door kicked in and her belongings thoroughly rummaged.

Swift generously allowed that the incident hasn’t soured her on Vermont, and complimented the state police on their response. She and her husband are house-shopping, despite this Vermont-sized outbreak of crime.

(By the way, I’ve heard that some in Vermont Republican circles are intrigued by Swift as a potential candidate. If she’s their idea of a “star,” it shows what a desperate state they’re in. Swift was elected Lieutenant Governor; she served one unelected half-term after Paul Cellucci resigned so he could become Bush’s ambassador to Canada. Next election, Swift got bigfooted by Mitt Romney, who wanted to use the governorship as a stepping stone to his inevitable election to the Presidency, haw haw.)

17-year-old skier Mikaela Shiffrin, for becoming the youngest women’s Apline skiing works champion in nearly three decades after winning last weekend’s slalom in the poetically-monickered town of Schladming, Austria. Just rolls off the tongue. Shifrin is now seen as a rising star who’s sure to become one of the faces of the US team in next year’s Winter Olympics.

Shiffrin is a native of Colorado, but she attends school at Burke Mountain Ski Academy in Vermont. After her win, she gave a lot of credit to her coach, Kirk Dwyer, for honing her technique to championship levels. Dwyer returned the compliment, calling her “the best skier in school history.” Hard to argue.

 Veteran major-league pitcher Carl Pavano, who nearly suffered a fatal injury while shoveling snow at his winter home near the Okemo ski resort. On January 12, he slipped on some ice, the shovel handle jammed into his midsection and, unbeknownst to him, ruptured his spleen. As the primary shoveler at my house, let me just say AAAARRRRGGGGGH.

He didn’t realize it until four days later, when he was suddenly overcome by abdominal pain. By the time surgeons removed the spleen, he’d lost massive amounts of blood and is slowly recovering. He’s lucky to be alive, but from a professional viewpoint the timing couldn’t be worse: Pavano is a free agent who probably would have found a new team by now if not for his depleted condition. A full recovery will take several weeks at the very least, but Pavano vows to pitch again.

The Slummin’ Solon, Sen. Peter Galbraith (D-Messiah), for his heroic intervention in last week’s end-of-life debate that completely screwed the pooch. I’ve already vented my spleen (sorry, Carl) over his antics — killing a piece of legislation that had been thoroughly vetted and tested in favor of his one-page assisted-suicide free-for-all.  

This additional award isn’t for his legislative antics, but for not only believing that his shit don’t stink, but for trying to convince us all that it’s solid gold. He crowed that he’d “developed a 2-to-1 consensus” on the divisive issue. And while it’s true the final Senate vote was 22-8, the margin was purely procedural. Supporters of death with dignity hate Galbraith’s bill and only voted in favor so they could move it on to the House, hoping for a complete rewrite there. Opponents of the concept voted yes, not because they actually want to open the door to unregulated assisted suicide (which Galbraith’s bill would do), but because they wanted to kill the original bill.

Galbraith insisted that he didn’t “believe for a nanosecond that I gutted the bill,” even though his amendment threw out the entire original bill in favor of a concept that, according to Sen. Diane Snelling, was presented to the Senate with “less than one day” to consider it.

The former diplomat turned oil gazillionaire also betrayed his ignorance of the medico-legal process. He insisted that his bill, which simply indemnifies any doctor who helps a patient end his/her life, makes it a matter between a doctor and patient, and keeps the state out of it. Well, hell, Petey, the state regulates all kinds of medical activity — and for good reason: not every doctor is a paragon of virtue. (Not every diplomat is, either. I have a perfect example in mind.)

Not to mention that helping someone die is such a serious act that no doctor in her/his right mind would venture out and risk her/his professional career and freedom on this slender reed of legislation. There are far too many unanswered questions and gray areas. That’s why the original bill had so many safeguards, which had been tried and tested in other jurisdictions.

Do you know what an “asshat” is, Senator? It’s someone with his head wedged deeply in his fundament.

You, sir, are an asshat.  

So earlier today, I reported that House Speaker Shap Smith had told the House Health Care Committee to stay within the revenue parameters of Governor Shumlin’s budget. Two people who were in the room had told me the message was unmistakable: proposals for increased revenue were out of bounds. In a phone conversation this morning, the Speaker confirmed the meeting and his message. But after my post went up, he sent me an e-mail arguing that I had failed to accurately convey his meaning.

In the interest of fairness, I reproduce his e-mail here. Take it away, Mr. Speaker…

I didn’t say no new revenue to the Health Care Committee and haven’t, in fact, said no new revenue to any committee.  I have told the committees that our budget pressures are quite intense.  We don’t have a lot of extra money lying around and I think that we have to be careful about spending more money than the governor proposed in his budget, even if I might like to.

If you count the EITC change by the governor and the tax on break open tickets, he raises $35 million to balance his budget (that doesn’t include the $30 million raised in gas tax revenue).  It is clear to me that we will have to raise some money to even get to the spending level of the gov’s budget.  The Governor also uses close to $50 million in one-time money in his budget to balance it.  Even with new revenue proposed, our projections for the fiscal year 2015 budget suggest that we will be $85 million in the hole.

By the way, I have given the Health Care Committee space to have the conversation about the sugar sweetened beverage tax and if they choose to move forward with a vote, I don’t plan to put a kibosh on it.

My brief response… after the jump.

I can’t argue with anything the Speaker said above. He did not absolutely rule out new revenues, and he has allowed the Health Care Committee to discuss the “soda tax.” At the same time, although his words were not absolute, my two witnesses received a very clear message: work within the Shumlin budget.

Still, my headline referring to the committee getting its “marching orders” is overly dramatic. As are many headlines, both here and in the “real media.”  

Smith also makes some good arguments for holding the line on spending, given our outlook in future years. His points deserve consideration.

I respect Shap Smith and his views on the budget and on my previous diary. But I’m comfortable with what I wrote, and I hope he respects that.  

The word has come down to members of the House Health Care Committee: don’t add any new revenue to Governor Shumlin’s budget.

“I spoke to the committee last week,” House Speaker Shap Smith told GMD. “What I said was, the Governor had made a proposal with regard to… transitioning from VHAP and Catamount into the [health care] exchange [in 2014]. And given the broader context of the overall budget, I didn’t think that we could spend more money than the Governor had proposed.”

The transition from VHAP/Catamount to the exchange is problematic because the exchange isn’t as generous to working people as Vermont’s current programs. In his budget, Shumlin managed to hold Vermonters harmless on premiums — and, in many cases, reduce premiums — but significantly increased potential out-of-pocket costs. In other words, if you stay healthy you pay less, but if you get sick or injured you could pay a lot more.

“Very frustrating,” said Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), member of the committee and leader of the House Progressive Caucus. “It likely means we won’t decrease our number of uninsured and therefore our ability to draw down federal tax credits doesn’t match projections. All this bodes poorly for shifting to single-payer.”

Decreasing the number of uninsured is a key goal of Shumlin’s health care reform plan. And Peter Sterling, executive director of the Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security, agrees with Pearson that the short-term transition may defeat the larger goal: “Consumers… weigh both premiums and out-of-pocket limits when deciding whether to enroll. And when you look at the statistics, half of the uninsured are eligible for Catamount or VHAP. So affordability is clearly playing a role.”

And since the affordability problem will increase under Shumlin’s current plan, Sterling fears that the number of uninsured Vermonters will grow after the transition to the exchange.

After the jump: More cold water on a chilly day.

When asked if he’d delivered a similar no-new-revenue message to other committees, the Speaker said “No, I have not. But that’s not because I wouldn’t give that message to those committees, it’s because I haven’t talked to them.”

If that’s not enough cold water for you, Smith has another bucketful.

“I don’t think that there is room to spend much more than the Governor proposed spending in his budget. And in fact, I’m not sure that we can spend everything that he did propose in the budget. I have some concerns because we really don’t have any reserves left, and we spend a significant amount of one-time money in the budget.

“When I look at this year’s budget, I’m also trying to look at next year’s budget, also with an eye to what’s happening in Washington, and I want to be wise in the investments that we make, but I also want to be cognizant of the fact that we have pressures that are coming at us that should give us pause in spending a lot of new money.”  

A similar warning shot has already come from Rep. Janet Ancel (D-Calais), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

“We’re working in a very tight budget situation. …I think it’s a legitimate question whether we’re going to spend additional money even on really important programs this year.”

It may be a tough pill for progressives and liberal Democrats to swallow, but it may well be that the Governor, as much as we like to bag on his DINOism, is actually to the left of his own party leadership.  

When T. Michael Twomey applied for his job, there were at least three requirements: 

1. Willingness to place his soul in escrow

2. Ability to say ridiculous things without cracking a smile

3. Cojones the size of grapefruits.

Twomey is Vice President for External Affairs for Entergy Wholesale Corporation, and he deployed his stone face and massive onions during lengthy testimony before the Vermont Public Service Board on Friday. It was the fifth day of hearings on Entergy’s request for a new certificate of public good to operate Vermont Yankee for another 20 years. 

(His testimony, as far as I can tell, was only covered by Susan Smallheer of the Herald/Times Argus, so the full story is behind the Mitchell Family Paywall.) 

According to Twomey, the various problems, breakdowns and maintenance issues that have occurred during Entergy’s ten-year ownership of Vermont Yankee are “not relevant” in deciding whether to let the plant stay open.  

Twomey and his attorney Robert Juman, of the New York law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, tried to deflect a long list of problems at the Vernon reactor in the 10 years Entergy has owned the plant. Juman raised objection after objection, claiming information about the 2007 and 2008 partial collapse of Yankee’s cooling towers was not relevant, and that neither were other issues at the plant, including the company’s response to the tritium leak there in 2010.

The Department of Public Service says the maintenance record — and the fact that Entergy executives lied under oath about the existence of underground pipes carrying radionuclides — proves that Entergy is an untrustworthy partner. But Juman contended that maintenance concerns relate to safety — which is strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction. 

Indeed, Entergy seems intent on stretching “safety” to include almost everything under the sun.  

Earlier in the week, its lawyers argued that the PSB can’t consider the economic impact of Vermont Yankee — even the impact of a meltdown. And the potential impact of a nuclear plant’s presence on tourism. Freeploid:

Burlington lawyer Robert Hemley told the three-member board the only reason the presence of a nuclear plant might harm tourism is if the public develops fears about nuclear safety – a subject Vermont is barred from considering.

“Discussion about tourism is a pre-empted area. … We feel the entire area is off-limits for this board,” Hemley said.

… Entergy lawyer Sanford Weisburst argued later that the board would be hard-pressed to find a plausible, non-safety reason to deny Vermont Yankee a new permit.

Well, sure, if you assert that everything relates somehow to safety, then it’s hard to find a “non-safety reason.” In Entergy’s eyes, black is white — and so is yellow, green, orange, brown, red, blue, ecru, aquamarine, burnt umber, and Misty Sunrise. 

Not trying to incite any conspiracy theories here, but the nuclear industry’s rather spotty safety record is kind of an asset in this regard. If people immediately thought “safe, clean, reliable” whenever they see a nuke, then Entergy couldn’t tie everything back into federally-regulated “safety” concerns. As it stands, when the first thought that comes into mind is “OH GOD OH GOD FUKUSHIMA CHERNOBYL THREE MILE ISLAND CHINA SYNDROME WE ALMOST LOST DETROIT OH GOD OH GOD RUN AWAY AIIIIEEEEEE,” then sure, it’s easy to say that everything revolves around safety.

Now, back to Twomey. He also engaged in “a verbal dance” over Entergy’s 2002 assurances that it would not seek to extend VY’s license beyond 2012, refusing to confront his company’s 180-degree turn. But the biggest howler of all may have been: 

“Honestly, we don’t want to go to court,” Twomey said at one point, causing more than a few raised eyebrows in the hearing room.

Raised eyebrows, eh? Uncontrollable laughter would have been the appropriate response. After all, Entergy has four law firms on retainer for its battle over VY, and has repeatedly filed challenges and lawsuits to state actions. 

Twomey told the PSB that he was assigned to VY after the underground-pipe scandal broke in 2010. Judging by his testimony, his assignment wasn’t to clean out the stables and improve relations with the state — but to delay, defer, defy, and cover up. 

And clearly, Entergy doesn’t give a rat’s ass about its “partnership” with Vermont. 

On Thursday, Progressive lawmakers (plus at least one Independent, Barre’s Paul Poirier) unveiled their own plan to raise about $50 million in new revenue by targeting Vermonters with high incomes.  One after another, speakers praised Governor Shumlin’s plans for child care, education, clean energy, energy efficiency and more; but at the same time, they slammed his revenue ideas as “unfair.”

“We’re asking the poor to pay more,” said Poirier, “And we allow the people at the top to just keep earning their income. We need to take a stand, and make people pay their fair share.”

To illustrate their case, the lawmakers presented a chart prepared by the state tax department. It shows the rise (or fall) in gross income across the entire spectrum of earners — from lowest to highest — between 2001 and 2011. And the striking fact is, Vermonters who earn less than the median income level have lost ground, while those above the median have seen their incomes grow.

And generally, the higher you sit on the income ladder, the better you’ve done. Those at the very top,with incomes over $1 million a year, have enjoyed the strongest growth: an astounding 136.4%. The chart makes a compelling argument that Vermont’s top earners are doing very well in spite of the recession, and that Governor Shumlin’s argument that we shouldn’t tax “struggling Vermonters” is, well, in reality a talking point for the Progs. After all, it’s Shumlin who wants to raise the burden on “struggling Vermonters” by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit, failing to hold VHAP/Catamount clients harmless in the transition to the new health care exchange, and imposing a lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits. The Progs want to shift the burden to those who are prospering, not struggling.

Vermont’s median household income is $53,000 — exactly where the trend changes from strongly positive to neutral or negative. “Half of Vermonters live in this world,” said Rep. Chris Pearson, pointing to the bottom of the chart. “And half of Vermonters live in this world,” pointing to the top. “I don’t think reasonable people look at this data and suggest that all of the new revenue ought to come from down there. And yet that’s exactly what the Governor’s proposal would do.”

After the jump: Details of the Progressive plan, and a cold shower from Democratic leaders.

The Progs offered nine proposals for raising new revenue:

1. $5 million from a shift in bank taxation. Currently, banks pay a tax on their average monthly deposits. However, in recent years, most banks have diversified into other financial services, so a deposit tax no longer reflects their business model. Instead, the Progs want banks to pay a Franchise Tax or the regular corporate tax, whichever is greater.

2. $11 million from taxing capital gains as ordinary income. Currently, the first $5,000 of capital gains is exempt.

3. $1.5 million from adding a third “luxury home” tier to the Property Transfer Tax. Currently there are two tiers; this plan would add a third tier for properties worth more than $500,000.

4. $1.9 million from lowering the exemption in the Estate Tax. Currrently, the first $2.75 million of an estate is exempt. Pearson noted that most of our neighboring states have a $1 million exemption; he’d like to bring Vermont in line with that.

5. The big one, $20 million from collapsing the top two income tax brackets. Currently, a top earner walks through all the lower brackets before the top rate kicks in. Example: If you’re a single person earning $500,000, you pay the lowest rate (3.55%) on your first $34,500 in income, the second lowest rate (6.80%)on income between $34,500 and $83,600. Only your income above $379,150 is actually taxed at the top rate of 8.95%.

The Progs’ plan: those in the top two brackets (above $174,400 and $379,150 respectively) would pay their bracket’s tax rate on their entire income.

6. $1 million from establishing a state Alternative Minimum Tax. This would force people who claim lots of deductions to pay a certain amount of tax, no matter how many deductions they claim.

7. $1-2 million from taking unclaimed bottle deposits. Currently, the unclaimed nickels go to bottlers and distributors.

8. $4.5 million from establishing Natural Resources Extraction Taxes. Vermont is one of only eleven states without such a tax. The Progs would tax groundwater extraction at 28 cents per gallon, and “earth resources extraction” at two cents per cubic yard. Pearson argued that if corporations are profiting from Vermont’s natural resources, they should pay a share of their profits back to the state.

9. $3.2 million by ending the sales tax exemptions for two types of merchandise: bottled water, and items of clothing that cost more than $100.

Even as he introduced the Progressives’ plan, Rep. Pearson acknowledged that he doesn’t expect it to succeed. “We hope it will spark discussion,” he said, “and help legislative leaders find ways to advance Governor Shumlin’s priorities without hurting those who can least afford it.”

The Governor, as I reported earlier, repeated his constant refrain that The Tax Is Too Damn High. House Speaker Shap Smith was also ready with a bucket of icewater, telling VTDigger that many of the Progs’ ideas had failed in past years, and “don’t have broad support.”

State Rep. Janet Ancel, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, isn’t keen on either plan — Shumlin’s or the Progs’. She noted that the Legislature hasn’t decided whether to fund Shumlin’s spending plans at all. “We’re working in a very tight budget situation,” she told VTDigger. “I think it’s a legitimate question whether we’re going to spend additional money even on really important programs this year.”

State Democratic Party chair Jake Perkinson was conspicuously available for comment after the Progressive presser. (Lately, he’s been assuming a high-profile role, often speaking to policy questions on behalf of his party.) A reporter asked him if Shumlin’s plan was “consistent with Democratic values.” His reply:

The Governor’s plan is more of a long-term systemic approach to the problem, and the criticisms focus on the short-term effects. Not that those criticism aren’t valid. The Governor isn’t saying that these people aren’t important; he’s saying this is the best way to help them. There’s no difference on the goals, it’s a matter of debating how we’re going to reach those goals.

Which isn’t a bad point, really. It goes to Shumlin’s point, which he delivered much less artfully and more condescendingly: The current system is broken, and he’d like to fix it. But Perkinson’s statement assumes two things: that the goals will actually be achieved, and that they will be achieved quickly enough that no one in the working poor will suffer too much. That’s kind of a big gamble, no?

I have a lot of news to share; many interesting things from today’s Dueling Pressers — the Progressives announcing an alternative revenue plan, and Gov. Shumlin’s weekly news conference. I want to give more detail on the Progs’ plan, which shifts the new-revenue burden onto high earners and gives a very convincing rationale for doing so. I’ve also got material for a look at the overall impact of the Shumlin tax plan on the working poor.

Can’t do all that tonight. So I’m going to start with one simple thing.

My God, the Governor was a real schmuck today.

Everybody has strengths and weaknesses, good moments and bad. The Governor has a lot of strengths, and there are a lot of things I like about him. Today, though…

A bit of background first. Shumlin had gone several weeks in a row holding his weekly “news conference” at a remote site — a groundbreaking here, a major announcement there, a politically convenient background everywhere. As a result, the actual “news conferences” were relatively brief stand-ups. In the meantime, a hell of a lot has been going on, and there was lots to ask the Governor about. Plus, most of us had just attended the Progs’ presser, so we were focused on the widespread criticism of Shumlin’s tax plans. We were ready to pounce.

But the Governor wanted to focus today’s presser on a new, and laudable-sounding, higher-education initiative. In brief, he wants to make it much easier for high school students to take college-level courses — and even earn as much as one full year’s worth of credits while still in high school. And he managed to get all the relevant stakeholders on board: teachers, college administrators, public educators, and business leaders who would facilitate improved internship and apprenticeship programs. He had an all-star cast on hand to pump up the announcement.

In short, his expectations and ours were at odds. Made things a little tense.  

To start with, Shumlin didn’t just promote this higher-education initiative; he sought to tie his entire package of education, welfare, and tax plans into one single, indissoluble entity. “If you pull one leg out from under the plan,” he insisted, “the whole thing falls apart.”

In my mind, and in the minds of many others, he hasn’t made that case. Why does “the whole thing fall apart” if you find a different funding source for preschool child care, or if you don’t set a lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits? When he insists on the whole plan or nothing, he comes across as arrogant: only he has the Secret Plan, no one else has any better ideas, and he will brook no deviation.

Well, heck, that’s kinda-sorta not how representative democracy works. You propose, the Legislature disposes. And they can make changes if they see fit. That’s the truth, even if your idea IS actually the greatest thing since penicillin.

Early in the Q&A portion, I dared to float a notion: Is part of the Governor’s aversion to “broad-based tax increases” a way of garnering the business community’s participation? Here’s where the Condescender In Chief went into action:

You know… I probably speak to more Vermonters than most Vermonters. I spend my days on the road, listing, and I learn a lot from listening. And I know that when yo get in the bubble of this building, you may not believe this is true, but I have yet to have a Vermonter come up to me and say, “You know, Governor, I believe our biggest problem is that our taxes are not high enough. Can you go out and raise them?” The truth is, we have a very thoughtful tax policy in Vermont, the most thoughtful in the country. We ask our wealthiest residents to pay the most, we ask our poorest residents to pay the least, we all pay and we pay plenty.

1: Set up straw man. 2: Knock him down. 3: Do little victory jig.

My view is, and the majority of Vermonters agree with me, don’t raise taxes, take the money we’re spending and spend it in a smarter way so we get a bigger bang for our buck. Make government smarter, more efficient. We can do that. We don’t have to ask Vermonters who are struggling to recover form the worst recession in our history to pay more taxes.

Uh, Governor? That’s exactly what you’re doing — asking “struggling Vermonters” to shoulder more of the burden. The Progs are doing quite the opposite: seeking to raise revenue from Vermonters who are not struggling at all. Indeed, as your own tax department’s figures prove, those top-earning Vermonters have thrived during “the worst recession in our history.”

It wasn’t just the words, it was his tone. He’d make little exasperated noises. He’d talk low and slow, as if telling a toddler why she can’t have a cookie. And, of course, he’d completely evade the actual question with his practiced straw-man arguments.

Next, Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz pointed out that he hadn’t heard a single legislative leader express support for Shumlin’s plan to cut the state’s share of the Earned Income Tax Credit to fund child care. Shumlin’s answer left no room for contrary points of view:

Here’s what I can tell you. I firmly believe that my plan to move Vermonters from poverty to prosperity is absolutely dependent on finding a smarter way to spend the Earned Income Tax Credit dollars that we’re already spending, and get rid of the cliff that forces people on welfare to stay on welfare, in the insidious, cruel system that tells mostly-single moms when they go get a job, that if you take the job, or you take a dollar raise, we take your benefits from you to the degree that you’ve gotta go back on welfare. Now, I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s compassionate. On Valentine’s Day, that doesn’t speak to my heart. And it doesn’t speak to may Vermonters’ hearts.

Huh boy. The folks who want to hold the working poor harmless are the cruel ones! And how dare they be so mean on the holiday that celebrates love!  He wrapped up his answer by predicting that, by the end of the legislative session, lawmakers will see the wisdom of his approach.

His proposed five-year lifetime cap on Reach Up benefits would take effect in October, and would be retroactive. Those who have already received five years’ worth of benefits will be immediately cut off. I asked Shumlin if it wouldn’t be more compassionate to phase in the cap. His non-answer:

I think the fairest thing we can do is take a system that locks you in poverty, that locks you in welfare, that doesn’t allow you to have a professional career when you want to put your kids in child care, is the cruelest system we could have. And the faster we can move from that, the more compassionate we’ll be.

Black is white. Hot is cold. Cutting off benefits is compassion, and continuing benefits is cruel. And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

When asked if there wasn’t a better way to impose the Reach Up cut, this is the non-answer we got:

Listen, this is what I can tell ya. You’re not going to find a Governor or an administration or a Secretary of the Agency of Human Resources in the form of Doug Racine, or commissioners in the form of David Yacavone and others, or a Secretary of Education, whoa re more committed to being a compassionate state with a heart that helps to ensure that everybody has economic opportunity.

We are nice people. We are wise people. We know better than you. Stop questioning us!

I hope he can be a bit more persuasive — and a lot more open to other ideas — when he gets into serious talks with the Legislature. He might just have to (horrors!) accept 90% of his plan instead of the whole thing. Is that too heavy a cross for the Governor to bear?  

This post was written before the Senate’s final vote. I’ve updated it below to include that action.



At today’s gubernatorial press conference, it was inevitable that the death with dignity debate would come up. Specifically, Wednesday’s maneuver by Sen. Peter Galbraith (D-Asshat) in which he gutted the existing bill and substituted his own version, which would simply indemnify any doctor who prescribes a lethal dose to a patient.

Shumlin reiterated his strong support of the original bill, and offered some tough criticism of Galbraith’s substitution (without naming any names):

The bill that the Senate first discussed… is very carefully crafted. It follows the Oregon model. It’s not reinventing the wheel. I think when you pass an amendment that’s not thought out, that’s written on the fly, that you’re going to get unintended consequences that don’t put the protections in place that Vermonters feel strongly about. So I support the bill as it was originally introduced. I’m hopeful that the Senate will send it over to the House so the Speaker and the sensible House can put it back in shape.

Sensible House, insensible Senate?

When asked if he was calling for Senate passage of the Galbraith bill, he said yes:

I want to see the bill come to my desk, and I think the best likelihood for it to come to my desk in a smarter and more compassionate and more thoughtful form would be to let the House take a look at it.  

For “take a look at it,” read “dump the Galbraith bill and go back to the original.”

Well, the House will get the chance to do just that.  

This afternoon, the Senate approved the revised bill on a 15-15 vote with Lt. Gov Phil Scott casting the tiebreaker in favor. Just as he did yesterday. Scott, it should be noted, is an opponent of death with dignity.

Anyway, so the bill goes to the House. Supporters of the concept, like Gov. Shumlin, are hoping the House will undo Galbraith’s version and return the bill to its original form, or something close to it.  

And if that happens, the two versions would have to be reconciled.  

(This is a quick briefing; more detail to come later today.)

It was a case of dueling press conferences this morning at the Statehouse. Gov. Shumlin’s weekly presser had been set for 11:30 a.m. And then, in a nice bit of stagecraft, Progressive lawmakers scheduled a presser for 11:00 — immediately before Shumlin, giving the press corps plenty of time to take in both.

And ensuring that Shumlin’s tax plan would be center stage, whether he liked it or not.

The Progs unveiled a package of tax proposals that would raise $50 million in new revenue, mainly from Vermont’s top earners. The measures include reclassifying capital gains as ordinary income for tax purposes, extending sales taxes to items of reducing the exemption in the estate tax from $2.75M to $1M,  bringing it in line with neighboring states, and taxing the entire income of the top two tax brackets at the full rate. (Currently, a top earner’s earnings are taxed at a tiered rate — the first dollars at the lowest rate, etc.)  

They offered a compelling chart prepared by the state Department of Taxes, showing that income growth over the last decade has been heavily concentrated at the top end. Those below the median have seen their incomes decline or, at best, stagnate. For instance, those earning over $1M have seen a 136% rise in income, while those earning less than $30,000 have lost ground.

Hence, their argument that the wealthy can afford to pay a little more to create a more equitable society.

For his part, Shumlin reiterated his call for enaction of his entire package of new spending and revenue sources — including the controversial cut in the Earned Income Tax Credit. He called the current system “cruel” because it traps people in poverty, while his plan is truly “compassionate” because it would help raise people out of poverty.  

After the jump: That Tax Department chart. It’s quite amazing.

Here is the chart showcased at the Prog presser, which vividly illustrates the growing income gap in Vermont:

Congratulations, Mr. Ambassador. You single-handedly overturned a legislative process that had been building for years, and derailed a thoughtful debate through your own intransigence.

I say again, how in hell did Peter Galbraith ever make a successful diplomat?

The subject here is the rapid and confusing turn of events on the Senate floor today. On Tuesday, the Senate voted 17-13 to advance a death-with-dignity bill toward a final vote. But Galbraith joined the majority only to keep the game going, as he planned to advance his own amendment that would completely gut the bill.

And thanks to the closeness of the vote, he had the power to do just that.

Note to Galbraith: Just because you have power doesn’t mean you ought to use it. I think that’s something they teach diplomats.

The original bill, shepherded by Sen. Claire Ayer, was based on the Oregon model. Oregon has allowed doctor-assisted suicide under strictly controlled conditions for fifteen years; it has worked exactly as intended, allowing a tiny number of people to end their lives after meeting tough criteria. It’s a carefully crafted system.

Galbraith’s substitute bill would simply indemnify a doctor who prescribes a lethal dose to a patient. Even I, neither a doctor nor a lawyer, can see lots of problems and unanswered questions there. If he was serious about this, he should have introduced it earlier in the session, instead of springing it on the Senate at the very last minute.

Galbraith insisted that his bill had the same intent as Ayer’s, but it had a completely different effect on the Senate vote. Opponents of the Ayer bill lined up in favor of Galbraith’s, while Ayer’s allies all voted no.

The vote means that the Ayer bill is now dead for this session.

Instead, the Senate’s only option is Galbraith’s hastily-drawn and very brief amendment that hasn’t been vetted by legal or medical experts. Supporters of death with dignity will face a tough choice: vote yes on a bill they don’t like — at all — or vote no and wait to fight another day.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Ayer’s opponents jumped on the Galbraith bill as a way to kill the issue, and that they will reverse course tomorrow and vote “no.” If they do, and if a single supporter of death with dignity can’t bear to vote for the Galbraith version, then the bill will die.

Without dignity.

I know there are some GMDers who oppose death with dignity. And although I support the Ayer bill, my complaint isn’t over the fact of its defeat — but rather the underhanded way it was defeated.

They say that lawmaking is like sausage-making: a close-up view can cost you your appetite. That’s certainly the case here. And just as the nether regions of pigs play a starring role at the meat factory, this bit of legislative legerdemain featured a certain porcine sphincter in the lead role.

Talkin’ to you, Mr. Ambassador.